Jump to content

MAS and Car loan curb issues


L23
 Share

Recommended Posts

Tuck yew tell everyone to wait for 2015/2016 cause by then more coe release so price will drop, now tharman say want to lift loan curb, lift already coe sure shoot back up.

The LTA/govt should just make up their mind and stop tinkering. Very disruptive to everyone.

↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Supercharged
(edited)

 

as a regular bus commuter (i don't drive all the time), i am convinced that the BSEP has led to better frequencies in the past year or so. for singaporeans, many of whom don't have the privilege or feel relevant enough to surf MCF, this is something that makes a real difference to their lives.

 

the problem with LTA that i see is that they are too rational when singaporeans are not. take ERP for example - you pay for what you use: a beautiful economics concept that no other country in the world has managed to implement back then. at the same time they reduce OMV taxation from 160% to 100% to compensate for the extra that you have to pay in ERP (since you can no longer use one coupon for the whole day). but do you thank them for reducing your OMV tax? you will only curse chao cheng hu whenever you pass by an ERP gantry. this is where LTA fails to consider people's feelings.

 

you mentioned a "root". what do you think is the root? i really really have no idea. no matter what the root is, singaporeans' desire for a car can somehow overpower it time and again, be it COE, ERP, MCE, road tax, not enough parking or congestion.

For BSEP, using tax payer money to buy new bus fleet for private operators oh yah this is very rational indeed so that they can improve their service and increase the bus fares?!

 

For OMV, yah they reduced so did the PARF value of the car. So they are rational that we have to lose PARF value plus paying for ERP?

 

And root is to get from Pt A to Pt B at the shortest possible time. It can be by car, taxi, bus or MRT. That's LTA motto isnt it? They are advertising everywhere. So with road jammed packed, buses overcrowded, MRT breaking down, taxi missing during peak hours is their motto met? Nice try, please try again.

 

I'm toking abt LTA effectiveness, I'm still against lifting the loan curb. If LTA can beef up on solving the root, whether there is a loan curb will not matter.

Edited by Carnoob
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do u know wat is happening on the grd actually? 2nd hand car dealers are utilizing loopholes and allowing ppl to buy cars with low dp and high mthly installments. Personally, I still insist that they really bother to enforce it rather than remove the curbs

 

Else, all this talk of enforced financial prudence is all bs.. Ppl who can't afford still can buy at even high prices.. This loan curb is totally contradictory in its purpose

 

Yeah they offer 80% loan at interest rates above 4%. Eventually these people who take up these loans find themselves screwed.

 

Worse are those who try to get an over trade, etc to mask the fact that they aren't eligible for the loan. You'll eventually find them complaining in the forum about how bad car dealers are and how they got conned.

 

I agree they do need to enforce it but it is gonna be really tough to do. Overtrades is a damn good way to hide the lack of cash on the buyers part. Then they have over declaration of the car price to the banks. They also have in-house finance. Unless the government is going to put in specific clauses that prevents this, enforcement seems unlikely.

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The LTA/govt should just make up their mind and stop tinkering. Very disruptive to everyone.

 

 

who's tinkering?

 

some baseless article appears and you guys start foaming... ('Analysis', my a*s...)

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah ... last time dealer advertise ... rebate discount freebies bla bla bla

when go down showroom ... must take at least 70-80% loan 10 years

if not ... no rebate no discount no freebies

dealer want you to take high loan ... the comms that they got from bank is sibei ho jiak one

100% loan customer is KING ! they hate customer who pay cash ... you-know-who ... lol

 

 

 

When I got the Jetta last year, the price listed in the newspaper was 111,800. But that means you have to take a minimum loan of dunno how much. If you don't take loan, you pay 1k extra which equates to 112,800. So why not be debt free and pay only 112,800?

 

Rebate from taking loan is a mere 1k. The interest already sets you back more than 1k. Take loan for what?

 

Thankfully the sales person was nice and seemed kinda happy that I was paying in cash as he mentioned the huge number of people pestering him about getting 100% loan even though the new MAS ruling already kicked in. Frankly I don't care if the sales person likes me or not, I'm a paying customer so he should shut the f**k up and take my cash for the car.

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For BSEP, using tax payer money to buy new bus fleet for private operators oh yah this is very rational indeed so that they can improve their service and increase the bus fares?!

 

For OMV, yah they reduced so did the PARF value of the car. So they are rational that we have to lose PARF value plus paying for ERP?

 

And root is to get from Pt A to Pt B at the shortest possible time. It can be by car, taxi, bus or MRT. That's LTA motto isnt it? They are advertising everywhere. So with road jammed packed, buses overcrowded, MRT breaking down, taxi missing during peak hours is their motto met? Nice try, please try again.

 

I think this is meaningful if we can come up with a solution at the end of the day.

 

BSEP: using taxpayer money to buy buses (which the government maintains ownership over) --> so they can improve service --> so they can increase bus fares. Ya, it's quite rational what. If not where does the money to buy new buses come from? The fault with the current system is that operators can have their cake and eat it, which seems to be your sentiment. I agree with it, and I hope (not saying) that the contracting model will keep operators on their toes.

 

OMV and PARF: you pay less upfront, of course you get less at the end. you didn't "lose" the PARF value, it wasn't yours to begin with. PARF exists as, in my opinion, a very feeble attempt to encourage people to give up their cars. this is done by ensuring that people don't lose everything when they scrap their cars before 10 years, so PARF can guarantee a minimum value. i don't think it does much. but the government can ALWAYS decide to cancel PARF and you get back nothing at the end of 10 years.

 

The root: i still don't quite understand, but let me try. this was a discussion about loan curb, and you advocate staying with the loan curb (which i agree). ok. and the reason why so many people still want cars despite being unable to come up with 50% downpayment is because pt A to pt B is lousy (which i agree as well). ok. that's why LTA shouldn't exist... i don't see how this is a solution.

 

As with the discussion on BSEP and OMV, there are trade-offs to be made whenever a decision is arrived at. you cannot expect to have good service but not pay more for it (let me disregard the unsatisfactory state of the transport duopolies for now). likewise a transport system will not be functional without a regulator. if taxis all behave, but ba-ong-chias start reappearing, no one will drive a taxi anymore.

 

I will not say that the LTA is doing a satisfactory job. Far from it. I was equally disappointed when the COE changes were announced, and I didn't get why can't the concept of value = OMV get into their thick skulls. But for every policy screw-up there are other aspects of regulation which are successful but go unnoticed. Relatively smooth roads (compared to potholed Malaysia), clear signs (people not familiar with MCE doesn't mean they are not clear), flyovers, overheads, underpasses, covered walkways. Of course there'll people who will prefer dashing across the road without being blocked. But i think LTA's solutions make for a safer environment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And root is to get from Pt A to Pt B at the shortest possible time. It can be by car, taxi, bus or MRT. That's LTA motto isnt it? They are advertising everywhere. So with road jammed packed, buses overcrowded, MRT breaking down, taxi missing during peak hours is their motto met? Nice try, please try again.

 

I'm toking abt LTA effectiveness, I'm still against lifting the loan curb. If LTA can beef up on solving the root, whether there is a loan curb will not matter.

 

What is your expectation? To have smooth and quick commute every hour of the day?

 

It is all about trade-offs. If the aim is to achieve super free flow traffic on all modes of transport, we will have to over-built and over-provide for everything, I bet you the criticism would then be "government wasting my money".

 

LTA is by no means perfect but I can see in the past 2 years they are trying. To reach equilibrium it will take time, unfortunately in the internet age people expect things to be done yesterday all the time.

 

I personally don't like the way COE bidding system work today, as a car owning citizen, I always thought to cut out the dealers from the bidding process would bring prices back to more reasonable level. We each bid for what we are willing to pay and armed with COE, we go shopping for car. Dealer will only sell car without COE.

  • Praise 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Supercharged

I think this is meaningful if we can come up with a solution at the end of the day.

 

BSEP: using taxpayer money to buy buses (which the government maintains ownership over) --> so they can improve service --> so they can increase bus fares. Ya, it's quite rational what. If not where does the money to buy new buses come from? The fault with the current system is that operators can have their cake and eat it, which seems to be your sentiment. I agree with it, and I hope (not saying) that the contracting model will keep operators on their toes.

 

OMV and PARF: you pay less upfront, of course you get less at the end. you didn't "lose" the PARF value, it wasn't yours to begin with. PARF exists as, in my opinion, a very feeble attempt to encourage people to give up their cars. this is done by ensuring that people don't lose everything when they scrap their cars before 10 years, so PARF can guarantee a minimum value. i don't think it does much. but the government can ALWAYS decide to cancel PARF and you get back nothing at the end of 10 years.

 

The root: i still don't quite understand, but let me try. this was a discussion about loan curb, and you advocate staying with the loan curb (which i agree). ok. and the reason why so many people still want cars despite being unable to come up with 50% downpayment is because pt A to pt B is lousy (which i agree as well). ok. that's why LTA shouldn't exist... i don't see how this is a solution.

 

As with the discussion on BSEP and OMV, there are trade-offs to be made whenever a decision is arrived at. you cannot expect to have good service but not pay more for it (let me disregard the unsatisfactory state of the transport duopolies for now). likewise a transport system will not be functional without a regulator. if taxis all behave, but ba-ong-chias start reappearing, no one will drive a taxi anymore.

 

I will not say that the LTA is doing a satisfactory job. Far from it. I was equally disappointed when the COE changes were announced, and I didn't get why can't the concept of value = OMV get into their thick skulls. But for every policy screw-up there are other aspects of regulation which are successful but go unnoticed. Relatively smooth roads (compared to potholed Malaysia), clear signs (people not familiar with MCE doesn't mean they are not clear), flyovers, overheads, underpasses, covered walkways. Of course there'll people who will prefer dashing across the road without being blocked. But i think LTA's solutions make for a safer environment.

Oh yah, I'm already so OT... anyway I strongly feels that there is no need for MAS to U-turn loan curb.

 

For BSEP, I still disagree to use public funds to buy buses for private operators. Just if I were to provide service to company B, and I had to ask company B to buy the equipment so I can provide the service. Would company B buy for me? And after company B buy the equipment for me, I charge back with more expensive rates? Is this rational?

 

Let's look at it again, if they had announced taking the buses back and outsourcing the services then start buying buses, wouldn't it be better? That's how I see it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbocharged
(edited)

LTA is by no means perfect but I can see in the past 2 years they are trying. To reach equilibrium it will take time, unfortunately in the internet age people expect things to be done yesterday all the time.

 

I'm sorry but trying is not good enough anymore.

 

The same people have been running the show since Singapore gained independence (I'm not trying to be political about this but those are the facts).

 

I can understand if they recently took over the reins from some other people and are trying to sort out a mess left behind, but this is their own mess to begin with. A lot of people are tired of this whole "make a mess, then clear it up to show they're working hard" system we have going on.

 

Like this current COE mess, you would think they'd have sorted out a system first introduced 24 years ago.

Edited by Myxilplix
  • Praise 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

6th Gear

 

I'm sorry but trying is not good enough anymore.

 

The same people have been running the show since Singapore gained independence (I'm not trying to be political about this but those are the facts).

 

I can understand if they recently took over the reins from some other people and are trying to sort out a mess left behind, but this is their own mess to begin with. A lot of people are tired of this whole "make a mess, then clear it up to show they're working hard" system we have going on.

 

Like this current COE mess, you would think they'd have sorted out a system first introduced 24 years ago.

if they have really sorted out the mess, they are merely going back to the starting points.

Nothing to proud of! [thumbsdown]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Supersonic
(edited)

A reversal of their policy now would be really dumb. This should be less about making cars "affordable" (which they won't be for long as market forces would quickly drive up prices if people can now leverage more) or trying to artificially pad some dubious "retail figures" and more about encouraging financial prudence.

 

Put the last part in bold because I think it's very important,

Edited by Turboflat4
  • Praise 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Supercharged
(edited)

What is your expectation? To have smooth and quick commute every hour of the day?

 

It is all about trade-offs. If the aim is to achieve super free flow traffic on all modes of transport, we will have to over-built and over-provide for everything, I bet you the criticism would then be "government wasting my money".

 

LTA is by no means perfect but I can see in the past 2 years they are trying. To reach equilibrium it will take time, unfortunately in the internet age people expect things to be done yesterday all the time.

 

I personally don't like the way COE bidding system work today, as a car owning citizen, I always thought to cut out the dealers from the bidding process would bring prices back to more reasonable level. We each bid for what we are willing to pay and armed with COE, we go shopping for car. Dealer will only sell car without COE.

My expectation is for LTA to understand the ground and view transport as a whole not individually. They have the authority to control car, bus, taxi and MRT. They could have use the modes better to meet the objective of everyone going back home earlier.

 

From my understanding, people like to have more facilities than less. If I had to make plans and I would get criticism for providing more, I will still proceed with that because I know it would be part of my plan for expansion. But providing less means that I failed to foresee the future of my plan for expansion. People want leaders with foresight not hindsight. That's the difference.

 

Sorry I'm OT but I need to explain this. It is not because of internet, it is in the plan for Singapore to grow to a X population number and yet the facilities can't catch up. Yes I agree, they are trying to catch up then again it shows that they failed to foresee the impact of population growth (and there had been no change of government) on transport.

 

And yes I agree, COE bidding system we had mentioned about self-bidding and I supported it then again it was rejected by LTA. And again someone suggested nationalizing PTS but was rejected. After BSEP introduced, LTA comes out to say they will take back the buses and outsource the services only (is that different from nationalizing transport?). Since they had the plan to take back the buses 2 years ago which they claimed, why not ask the public opinions and if supported they can implement it earlier?

 

It only proves to me that they are coming out with solution to cover the other solution that they screwed up (being reactive).

 

Back to topic, if retails drops because of loan curb, it proved that MAS had a viable solution but they are going to lift it because it is not generating income? I say take the bitter pill and move on, don't lift the loan curb but I guessed it would be ignored and the cycle will repeats by itself.

Edited by Carnoob
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm sorry but trying is not good enough anymore.

 

The same people have been running the show since Singapore gained independence (I'm not trying to be political about this but those are the facts).

 

I can understand if they recently took over the reins from some other people and are trying to sort out a mess left behind, but this is their own mess to begin with. A lot of people are tired of this whole "make a mess, then clear it up to show they're working hard" system we have going on.

 

Like this current COE mess, you would think they'd have sorted out a system first introduced 24 years ago.

 

I see where you are coming from but unfortunately, as cliche as it may sounds, there is no perfect system in the world. Things always evolve and change and sometimes it changes for the worst, like COE categorisation by engine power!

 

The fundamental is, imo, still valid; i.e. to control the car population. The difficult part is how to do that equitably.

 

A bit OT so I shall stop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A reversal of their policy now would be really dumb. This should be less about making cars "affordable" (which they won't be for long as market forces would quickly drive up prices if people can now leverage more) or trying to artificially pad some dubious "retail figures" and more about encouraging financial prudence.

 

Put the last part in bold because I think it's very important,

 

Totally agree on this. Don't buy things one cannot afford. Plus never ever forget the running costs that comes with owning a car.

I cant help but suspect all the signs of "car affordability" has to do with GE votes.

  • Praise 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Supercharged

I see where you are coming from but unfortunately, as cliche as it may sounds, there is no perfect system in the world. Things always evolve and change and sometimes it changes for the worst, like COE categorisation by engine power!

 

The fundamental is, imo, still valid; i.e. to control the car population. The difficult part is how to do that equitably.

 

A bit OT so I shall stop.

There is no perfect system, but policy should not be based on 'try and see how it goes'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing official from MAS but yet this stirred up quite a reaction here. Think the loan thingy is here to stay, at least for the near future. it is only when there is a sign of coe crashing, then they might release this restriction to at least prop up the COE. Likely hood is nearer 2016 where supply of COE is gonna increase and also, Election year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Supersonic

There is no perfect system, but policy should not be based on 'try and see how it goes'.

 

I don't mind, as long as we can also accept the opposition (or as I like to call them: "alternative gahmen") in power on a "try and see how it goes" basis. We should be encouraging this as well. Might save us millions in salary alone. :D

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6th Gear

Nothing official from MAS but yet this stirred up quite a reaction here. Think the loan thingy is here to stay, at least for the near future. it is only when there is a sign of coe crashing, then they might release this restriction to at least prop up the COE. Likely hood is nearer 2016 where supply of COE is gonna increase and also, Election year.

This is their pattern ma..

Leak some plan out first to test the marker reaction...

If the reaction is good, they will implement it.

If the reaction bounce back badly, they will just say all these are rumour ma... :angry:

↡ Advertisement
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...